On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:24:01AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 01:23:36AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > Although not reported as a bug, openct 0.6.2 (the version in testing) > > > needed a soname bump but didn't get it. 0.6.4 fixes that problem, and > > > since opensc and openct are somewhat codependent, the latest version > > > of it should go in as well. > > Are there packages in testing which depend on openct and are currently built > > against the wrong ABI? Otherwise, given that this ABI is already in > > testing, how much does it really matter whether the soname is "right" -- is > > there a compatibility issue with other distros? > I suppose it's not the end of the world, but if any non-free programs > use it (there aren't any that I know of, but I don't know > everything). There may be a compatibility issue with other distros, > but I haven't investigated. The worst-case scenario is that someone out there is distributing third-party binaries that require a pre-0.6.2 libct0, which then don't work because Debian's libopenct0 has a namespace collision with the library it needs. If this doesn't seem likely to you, I think we're better off not worrying about it at this point. The case of someone distributing binaries requiring libopenct1 seems to be much more straightforward, since the user can create a local symlink pointing libopenct1 at the existing libopenct.so.0. > PS While I have your attention, please dump ferite from testing. It's > totally broken and I don't have the time or inclination to fix > it. Nobody's using it so no big loss. Ok, done. :) > PPS Firefox 1.0.4 should be release Real Soon Now(TM), it will need a > shove into testing. I'll keep you posted. Noted. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature